Democratization (sort of) denied.

If last week’s democratization thesis was convincing, this week’s rebuttal is equally as convincing and meets it on all fronts. Particularly interesting, to me, was the chapter on partisan unrest under George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson.  This “mistrust” toward the freshly implemented governmental system included uprisings of all sorts.  It’s also interesting to note that it was out of this sort of political unrest that the first amendments to the Constitution were made. Because people were grasping for political liberties, they were also grasping that those same liberties be applied to religion. These grasps came to a dilemma when it came to the elections of 1800. What was it about Thomas Jefferson? He was not yet known for his Bible, taking away the miracles of Jesus and emphasizing the teachings. The Federalists played the ages-old political attack ad card on Jefferson, while his defenders did the same back toward the Federalists. This sort of systemic unrest trickled to individuals in some fascinating ways. Racism and sexism in this early time were prevalent. Racism and sexism seem to both be informed and inform the unrest. While it is persuasive and interesting, the systemic unrest theory of religious rise, however, can only go so far. It is endemic of any young start up - whether a country, a small business, or a religious group, - to have these sort of hiccups. Questions of who is in charge, why that person or group is in charge, and what the boundaries and context are arise. The interconnectedness of political/governmental unrest and religious response is tricky, complicated, and not necessarily unique to any time period.